In-Sue Oh

The Five-Factor Model of Personality Traits and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis

Using meta-analytic tests based on 87 statistically independent samples, we investigated the relationships between the five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors in both the aggregate and specific forms, including individual-directed, organization-directed, and change-oriented citizenship. We found that Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Openness/Intellect have incremental validity for citizenship over and above Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, 2 well-established FFM predictors of citizenship. In addition, FFM personality traits predict citizenship over and above job satisfaction. Finally, we compared the effect sizes obtained in the current meta-analysis with the comparable effect sizes predicting task performance from previous meta-analyses. As a result, we found that Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Extraversion have similar magnitudes of relationships with citizenship and task performance, whereas Openness and Agreeableness have stronger relationships with citizenship than with task performance. This lends some support to the idea that personality traits are (slightly) more important determinants of citizenship than of task performance. We conclude with proposed directions for future research on the relationships between FFM personality traits and specific forms of citizenship, based on the current findings.

Too much of a good thing: curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance.

The relationships between personality traits and performance are often assumed to be linear. This assumption has been challenged conceptually and empirically, but results to date have been inconclusive. In the current study, we took a theory-driven approach in systematically addressing this issue. Results based on two different samples generally supported our expectations of the curvilinear relationships between personality traits, including Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability, and job performance dimensions, including task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behaviors. We also hypothesized and found that job complexity moderated the curvilinear personality–performance relationships such that the inflection points after which the relationships disappear were lower for low-complexity jobs than they were for high-complexity jobs. This finding suggests that high levels of the two personality traits examined are more beneficial for performance in high- than low-complexity jobs. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the use of personality in personnel selection.

The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Managerial Performance: Validity Gains Through the Use of 360 Degree Performance Ratings

This study investigated the usefulness of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality in predicting two aspects of managerial performance (task vs. contextual) assessed by utilizing the 360 degree performance rating system. The authors speculated that one reason for the low validity of the FFM might be the failure of single-source (e.g., supervisor) ratings to comprehensively capture the construct of managerial performance. The operational validity of personality was found to increase substantially (50%-74%) across all of the FFM personality traits when both peer and subordinate ratings were added to supervisor ratings according to the multitrait-multimethod approach. Furthermore, the authors responded to the recent calls to validate tests via a multivariate (e.g., multitrait-multimethod) approach by decomposing overall managerial performance into task and contextual performance criteria and by using multiple rating perspectives (sources). Overall, this study contributes to the evidence that personality may be even more useful in predicting managerial performance if the performance criteria are less deficient.

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between General Mental Ability and Nontask Performance

Although one of the most well-established research findings in industrial-organizational psychology is that general mental ability (GMA) is a strong and generalizable predictor of job performance, this meta-analytically derived conclusion is based largely on measures of task or overall performance. The primary purpose of this study is to address a void in the research literature by conducting a meta-analysis to determine the direction and magnitude of the correlation of GMA with 2 dimensions of nontask performance: counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Overall, the results show that the true-score correlation between GMA and CWB is essentially 0 (-.02, k = 35), although rating source of CWB moderates this relationship. The true-score correlation between GMA and OCB is positive but modest in magnitude (.23, k = 43). The 2nd purpose of this study is to conduct meta-analytic relative weight analyses to determine the relative importance of GMA and the five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits in predicting nontask and task performance criteria. Results indicate that, collectively, the FFM traits are substantially more important for CWB than GMA, that the FFM traits are roughly equal in importance to GMA for OCB, and that GMA is substantially more important for task and overall job performance than the FFM traits. Implications of these findings for the development of optimal selection systems and the development of comprehensive theories of job performance are discussed along with study limitation and future research directions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

Understanding Organizational Commitment: A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Roles of the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Culture

We examined the relationships between the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality traits and three forms of organizational commitment (affective, normative, and continuance commitment) and their variability across individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Meta-analytic results based on 55 independent samples from 50 studies (N = 18,262) revealed that (a) all FFM traits had positive relationships with affective commitment; (b) all FFM traits had positive relationships with normative commitment; and (c) Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience had negative relationships with continuance commitment. In particular, Agreeableness was found to be the trait most strongly related to both affective and normative commitment. The results also showed that Agreeableness had stronger relationships with affective and normative commitment in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. We provide theoretical and practical implications of these findings for personality, job attitudes, and employee selection and retention.

Differential Validity for Cognitive Ability Tests in Employment and Educational Settings: Not Much More than Range Restriction?

The concept of differential validity suggests that cognitive ability tests are associated with varying levels of validity across ethnic groups, such that validity is lower in certain ethnic subgroups than in others. A recent meta-analysis has revived the viability of this concept. Unfortunately, data were not available in this meta-analysis to correct for range restriction within ethnic groups. We reviewed the differential validity literature and conducted 4 studies. In Study 1, we empirically demonstrated that using a cognitive ability test with a common cutoff decreases variance in test scores of Black subgroup samples more than in White samples. In Study 2, we developed a simulation that examined the effects of range restriction on estimates of differential validity. Results demonstrated that different levels of range restriction for subgroups can explain the apparent observed differential validity results in employment and educational settings (but not military settings) when no differential validity exists in the population. In Study 3, we conducted a simulation in which we examined how one corrects for range restriction affects the accuracy of these corrections. Results suggest that the correction approach using a common range restriction ratio for various subgroups may create or perpetuate the illusion of differential validity and that corrections are most accurate when done within each subgroup. Finally, in Study 4, we conducted a simulation in which we assumed differential validity in the population. We found that range restriction artificially increased the size of observed differential validity estimates when the validity of cognitive ability tests was assumed to be higher among Whites. Overall, we suggest that the concept of differential validity may be largely artifactual and current data are not definitive enough to suggest such effects exist.

Taking it to another level: do personality-based human capital resources matter to firm performance?

Drawing on the attraction-selection-attrition perspective, strategic human resource management (SHRM) scholarship, and recent human capital research, this study explores organization-level emergence of personality (i.e., personality-based human capital resources) and its direct, interactive, and (conditional) indirect effects on organization-level outcomes based on data from 6,709 managers across 71 firms. Results indicate that organization-level mean emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness are positively related to organization-level managerial job satisfaction and labor productivity but not to financial performance. Furthermore, organization-level mean and variance in emotional stability interact to predict all three organization-level outcomes, and organization-level mean and variance in extraversion interact to predict firm financial performance. Specifically, the positive effects of organization-level mean emotional stability and extraversion are stronger when organization-level variance in these traits is lower. Finally, organization-level mean emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness are all positively related to firm financial performance indirectly via labor productivity, and the indirect effects are more positive when organization-level variance in those personality traits is lower. Overall, the findings suggest that personality-based human capital resources demonstrate tangible effects on organization-level outcomes. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed along with study limitations and future research directions.

Cynical About Change? A Preliminary Meta-Analysis and Future Research Agenda

Cynicism about organizational change is often considered an important factor that influences employee acceptance of change initiatives. However, cynicism has been compared with several similar constructs with little conceptual or empirical differentiation. To provide a deeper understanding of change cynicism, we compare and contrast it with similar—yet distinct—constructs: organizational trust, resistance to change, and organizational cynicism. We begin with a narrative review of the conceptual distinctions and similarities among these constructs, followed by meta-analysis of the nomological network of change cynicism. In addition, we compare the nomological network of change cynicism with those of organizational cynicism and trust. We discuss the need for a refined conceptualization of cynicism and suggest new areas for future research.

The Interactive Effect of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on Job Performance Dimensions in South Korea

While much is known about the effects of personality traits on performance, there is still limited empirical evidence that examines how personality traits may interact with each other to impact dimensions of performance. This study examined how conscientiousness and agreeableness interact to predict both task performance and organizational citizenship behavior using a sample of 113 bank employees in South Korea. The interaction between the two personality traits was significantly related to both dimensions of performance.

The Incremental Validity of Honesty-Humility over Cognitive Ability and the Big Five Personality Traits

The present study examines the incremental validity of Honesty–Humility (H-H), a measure of the tendency to be fair and genuine in dealing with others, for supervisory ratings of job performance (including both task and contextual performance) over cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits. Specifically, we explore the incremental validity of H-H in predicting contextual performance. Results based on 217 South Korean military officer candidates are consistent with previous conclusions that Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of contextual performance and that cognitive ability is the strongest predictor of task performance. More important, our results reveal that H-H offers moderate incremental validity for contextual performance but no incremental validity for task performance over the effects of cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits.